POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Look, I have my hands full here without attempting to justify Judy's work, whcihI find extremely interesting. The exaggeration of someone else's position to makeit easier to attack is called "the straw man". I spent 35 years teaching students toavoid elementary fallacies like this, where your characterization of Judy's work isan example. We don't know how the Twin Towers were destroyed and she maybe wrong about the use of directed energy weapons, but they have been aroundlong enough that the could have been used, where the case has not been proven.

It does not appear to me that you are interested in becoming more familiar withher work, which is my subjective impression from posts like this one. My interestin her work derives from the brilliant job she has done collating photos and otherstudies of the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center that an acceptabletheory would have to explain. Those include the extent of the dustification, theodd damage to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 as well as the "toasted cars".If you have a theory that can explain all of this, let me know, because I don't.

Quick research of definitions and history show that a large part of the reason for the Qui Tam action (in modern law) is the protection of whistle blowers, and there have been several court decisions affirming that.

The financial benefit to Woods would have been neglible, but the benefits to helping discover the truth were potentially huge. That is, if her action had prevailed, it might have been made public as to whether and why certain companies specializing in DEW provided "assistants" to NIST to possibly control the direction of the agency's "research" into the events of the day. IF she is right, the coverup was engineered by certain for profit companies.

But your "instincts" tell you that she took the action for financial gain.

Your bias and prejudice are obvious. Why, I haven't a clue. But it is obvious you do not like the woman, or you do not like the questions she asks. Shame on you.

A basic desideratum of criticism is to be sure you know the argument you are attempting to defeat.Why don't you explain my arguments and tell us how these videos are supposed to defeat them? Asfar as I can see, they do nothing of the sort, but there seem to be some who are eager to agree inspite of the evidence. Since John Lear, one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and a study byPilots for 9/11 Truth both support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the videos, how doesthis response cope with that question? The impossible entry in defiance of Newton's laws cannot bedefeated by showing the plane entering the building in defiance of Newton's laws. So what exactlydo you think you are proving here? Do you think the plane should pass through its own length intothe building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air? That impliesthat this massive steel-and-concrete building provides no more resistance to the plane's trajectorythan air. If you think this is a real plane, then my hats off to you. Some of us have a far greatertolerance for fantasy than do I. You may be the best example of living in delusion on this thread.

The first video not just in my opinion clearly shows significant deceleration. The second quite significant sway of the building consistent with impact of something heavy from the right direction. So I'm quite not sure what interpretation of Newton's laws you mean... The speed of the plane is realy very high as confirm multiple sources including official ones. In fact first when I came to this forum years ago I came with the question about "UA175" almost unbelievable speed, later I even persuaded the same author of the videos I posted to make 3D simulation based on available videos to exactly determine booth trajectory (btw the videos fit each other) and speed and it was found out that the impact speed is 250+ m/s relatively to the buildings wall and the impact angle is almost perpendicular. You really believe a plane with such speed can't penetrate through "wall" of which almost half of the surface are just windows and the rest in form of columns is 0.25 inch thick steel (I really don't know what means "massive" for you) moreover easily dislodgable from its position because bolted just with 4 bolts on the connections. I must say that sustained trolling usually ends with holydays at this forum, so if you like it please keep it strictly here.